Is intelligence supernatural?

[Freodin]

An often used argument against Evolution is the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Alledgedly, it prevents the rising of complexity over time.

But those who use this argument do not consider that, if that really was true, the 2LoT would forbid ANY complex systems to arise. Snowflakes, geological formations, plans, humans.

An "intelligent creator" can overcome this defect of argumentation - but only if it is involved in the formation of any complex process.

That includes human intelligence.

That only leaves two possible conclusions.

Human thought is guided/created by this creator. We do not have a free will. Free will would go against the 2LoT.

or

Human though in itself is not bound by this law of nature. It is supernatural.

 

[webboffin]

 

[Zadok001]

Ditto weboffin. What?

You're correct in that the second law is meaningless regarding the formation of complexity in an open system, but you seem to take that concept to an entirely unwarranted conclusion. The flaw in reasoning seems to lie here:

"An "intelligent creator" can overcome this defect of argumentation - but only if it is involved in the formation of any complex process."

Regardless of intelligence, the second law cannot be violated. If you have a closed system with an intelligent entity in it, you still aren't able to decrease the overall entropy of the system. Intelligence is irrelevant to thermodynamics.

 

[Arikay]

You missed a third conclusion. That the 2nd law of thermodynamics is being missunderstood and we can have free will without outside force and without violating the 2nd law.

 

[Freodin]

Originally posted by Arikay
You missed a third conclusion. That the 2nd law of thermodynamics is being missunderstood and we can have free will without outside force and without violating the 2nd law.

Perhaps I didn´t phrase my thought too well.

Let´s try again.

We assume:
The 2LoT prevents complex systems from forming without outside "guidance". (Note: This is not my claim, but a creationist one)
That means, Evolution cannot happen.

Then it must be concluded that it would not be enough for a unspecified creator "starting" the universe and letting it run according to some given or inherent "laws" - which would be roughly the position of theistic evolution.

So, this stated interpretation of the 2LoT would mean that ANY process resulting in complexity MUST be guided.
If just a single such process could exist, that produces a decrease in entropy solely based on existing laws, the objection against Evolution would be invalid. If a snowflake could form, then why not humans?


Can you follow me so far?

So now, if this stated interpretation of the 2LoT is true, every such process MUST be guided - and that would include the formation of human thought as well. Complex systems like thought CANNOT form solely based on existing laws and matter/energy.

And so that leaves me with (your right Arikay, I forgot the third - and true conclusion) three conclusions.

1. Humans do not have free will. Every though we have MUST be specially created by God.
Christians would never accept that conclusion.

2. Human thought is on the same level as divine though. It is capable of working outside of the laws of nature.
Pantheists might accept that - Christians never will.

3. This interpretation of the 2LoT is wrong. It does not forbid that forming of complex systems.

So, that was my point: The argument that the 2LoT forbids Evolution cannot be true, even from a creationists point of view.

 

[Arikay]

Ah, yes, now I understand, I aparently missed a couple words I was type on a similiar question when I read it, so um, yeah.

 

[Tenek]

There is nothing which prohibits entropy from decreasing in an open system. There isn't even anything which prohibits entropy from decreasing in a closed system, although in the latter it is very, very, very unlikely. An increase in entropy in the surroundings can easily compensate for a decrease in an open system. Given that there's no such thing as a truly closed system except possibly the entire universe... *shrugs*

 

[Zadok001]

I think there's still a relevant flaw here. Consider:

I can create a factory which will churn out semi-randomly shaped bits of metal. (Melt the metal, drop it from a height into ice water. *Bing!*, semi-random shape.)

This process, however, does not require my guidance, nor do I control the final form of the metal - Merely the systematic construction thereof. God, under this model, could create an equivalent 'factory' of the human mind. The complexity that results from the mind's function, which is to say thought, is not directly controlled by God. By utilizing a random or semi-random element, God does not directly control the result, escaping from the paradox.

(Please note I'm an atheist. Additionally, note that since God is all-powerful, he cannot be reasonably contained by contradictions. If he wishes thoughts to create themselves, there is no reason he cannot. He needs only violate the second law on a very limited level, and we would be incapable of noticing such a contradiction. So I think theists can wiggle out of this one, unfortunately.)

 

[Freodin]

Originally posted by Zadok001
I think there's still a relevant flaw here. Consider:

I can create a factory which will churn out semi-randomly shaped bits of metal. (Melt the metal, drop it from a height into ice water. *Bing!*, semi-random shape.)

This process, however, does not require my guidance, nor do I control the final form of the metal - Merely the systematic construction thereof. God, under this model, could create an equivalent 'factory' of the human mind. The complexity that results from the mind's function, which is to say thought, is not directly controlled by God. By utilizing a random or semi-random element, God does not directly control the result, escaping from the paradox.

(Please note I'm an atheist. Additionally, note that since God is all-powerful, he cannot be reasonably contained by contradictions. If he wishes thoughts to create themselves, there is no reason he cannot. He needs only violate the second law on a very limited level, and we would be incapable of noticing such a contradiction. So I think theists can wiggle out of this one, unfortunately.)

I don´t see any way for them to wiggle out of that - because exactly the same argument you made for the mind could be made for Evolution.

That would result in theistic evolution: God setting the mechanism for lifeforms to evolve.

 

[Zadok001]

True enough. My point was merely that the argument, in and of itself, does not force a theist to abandon the abuse of the second law as 'evidence' against evolution. Basically, while interesting, this idea doesn't signifigantly affect a theist's position on the issue.

 

[TimeBeast]

Entropy does not oppose order... it basically says that everything tends towards disorder, but does not prevent it. The natural collapse of nebulae into stars is chaotic but creates order. But eventually, in millions of years it will tend towards disorder.

Another way to view it is a car. You can build a car, it takes time and energy. But that car will always grow old... the only way to prevent that is more time and energy, but you can never make it better besides replacing parts... eventually on a universal scale disorder is invitable. This does not prevent order in the meantime...